Online Now 2444

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

On this Board 134
Record: 3425 (1/27/2013)

Online now 2435
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Wouldn't want Obama as my investment advisor

  • MSUx2 said...

    If Obama ran your 401k, he would invest it in failing business ventures like Solyndra and your 401k would be gone. Then he has you dependent on the government feet and can count on your vote.

    loco

    Madhatter536

  • fallenangle said...

    Did you follow my posts in this thread or did you just randomly read that one post and twist it around so it reads the way you want it to? You lobbed the first grenade implying I don't care about people who lose their jobs and how it affects their families, at the same time trying to tell me what the point of my reply was. The point being made in this thread entitled "Wouldn't want Obama as my investment advisor" is that GM was not a smart investment, contrary to Vlad's assertion otherwise and posted irrefutable irrevocable empirical evidence to the contrary. It was a bailout for (fill in your own subjective reason ), not an investment strategy. THAT's the point

    I was commenting on one specific post. If you want to argue semantics that's fine but it's only in your opinion that there is "irrevocable empirical evidence to the contrary". There's no way to accurately measure the effect on the economy if there were no bailouts but doesn't it make sense in personal loss to let millions lose their jobs and go on the government dole by not bailing out these companies. You need to get your head out of graphs and think in terms of families and the small businesses that Republican's claim to love so much that would have been devastated had GM and Chrysler gone under.

    MSchott ●

  • MSchott said...

    I was commenting on one specific post. If you want to argue semantics that's fine but it's only in your opinion that there is "irrevocable empirical evidence to the contrary". There's no way to accurately measure the effect on the economy if there were no bailouts but doesn't it make sense in personal loss to let millions lose their jobs and go on the government dole by not bailing out these companies. You need to get your head out of graphs and think in terms of families and the small businesses that Republican's claim to love so much that would have been devastated had GM and Chrysler gone under.

    And I bet you're equally as concerned for the small businesses/families that would have been devasted if certain wall street firms had gone under, right? You have heard of things like bankruptcy, unemployment insurance, etc? It's not an opinion, it's a fact. You do understand what our cost basis is on this transaction, right? GM stock has been plummeting ( under 20 bucks as of today ) and it ain't going up anytime soon with the knowledge that 500 million shares are about to be dumped in the very near future. Have you put your money where your mouth is? How many shares of GM did you buy up when you saw this great investment opporunity with shares being offered up at $33 a pop? We are probably gonna lose close to 20 billion on the deal when it's all said and done! Only deluded, partisan hacks believe the GM bailout has been a successful INVESTMENT.

    fallenangle

  • TrapperGus said...

    Your 100% wrong on that...the point is what was the least amount of government money being spent in the situation...turns out it was cheaper, aka a better investment, to bail the companies out rather then letting them fail...

    So it was a Brillent investment and worked well...that's the point.

    You have no way of knowing what would have happened in bankruptcy, therefore it's impossible to know if this would have been cheaper. Putting that aside however, how much of your own money did you back this administration with on their brilliant investment?

    And had the Treasury sold when Romney wanted at $25 per share it would have saved us taxpayers at least 3 billion dollars based on today's price. There's absolutely NO reason for our money to still be tied up in GM

    This post was edited by fallenangle on 7/10/2012 at 5:27 PM

    fallenangle

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports